feat: change output if all diff output is suppressed

[TheMeier]

If a diff exists but is suppressed in the output change the text to make it more clear what is actually happening.

[Copilot]

Pull Request Overview

This PR introduces a new change style ("MODIFY_SUPPRESSED") to improve the clarity of diff output when all changes are suppressed. It updates the report generation across various output formats and tests for the new suppressed diff output.

Reviewed Changes

Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated 2 comments.

File	Description
diff/report.go	Adds a new ChangeStyle for "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED" with a descriptive message in diff and simple reports. Updates JSON and template reports with an empty message.
diff/diff_test.go	Updates tests to expect the new "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED" message when diffs are suppressed.
diff/diff.go	Modifies diff suppression logic to assign the "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED" change type when applicable.

[yxxhero]

did you test it locally?

[yxxhero]

so many if? what can we optimize?

[TheMeier]

Well there are 3 cases here, how could you satisfy that with less then 2 ifs?

We rewrite it a bit:

		if !containsDiff && entry.changeType == "MODIFY" {
			entry.changeType = "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED"
		}
		if containsDiff {
			filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, diffs, entry.changeType)
		} else {
  		filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, []difflib.DiffRecord{}, entry.changeType)
		}

or

		if containsDiff {
			filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, diffs, entry.changeType)
		} else {
		  if entry.changeType == "MODIFY" {
				entry.changeType = "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED"
			}
  		filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, []difflib.DiffRecord{}, entry.changeType)
		}

[TheMeier]

did you test it locally?

I did add a unit test.

[yxxhero]

		if !containsDiff && entry.changeType == "MODIFY" {
			entry.changeType = "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED"
		}
		if containsDiff {
			filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, diffs, entry.changeType)
		} else {
  		filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, []difflib.DiffRecord{}, entry.changeType)
		}

this is better.

[yxxhero]

or we can use new var?

[TheMeier]

I have changed the code.
I don't see how/where a new variable would change anything.

How about this variant:

		var diffRecords []difflib.DiffRecord
		switch {
		case containsDiff:
			diffRecords = diffs
		case entry.changeType == "MODIFY":
			entry.changeType = "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED"
			diffRecords = []difflib.DiffRecord{}
		default:
			diffRecords = []difflib.DiffRecord{}
		}

		filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, diffRecords, entry.changeType)

[yxxhero]

I have changed the code. I don't see how/where a new variable would change anything.

How about this variant:

		var diffRecords []difflib.DiffRecord
		switch {
		case containsDiff:
			diffRecords = diffs
		case entry.changeType == "MODIFY":
			entry.changeType = "MODIFY_SUPPRESSED"
			diffRecords = []difflib.DiffRecord{}
		default:
			diffRecords = []difflib.DiffRecord{}
		}

		filteredReport.addEntry(entry.key, entry.suppressedKinds, entry.kind, entry.context, diffRecords, entry.changeType)

we can try this.

[TheMeier]

@yxxhero I have simplified the code even more using switch/case. Also I fixed the the color to be actually used and chose a color that actually exists in the lib.
unit tests are ok for me, did some manual tests which also are ok for me. So in my opinion this is now good to go

[yxxhero]

LGTM

[yxxhero]

@mumoshu WDYT?